ITAT Judgment contain Income Tax related Judgments from Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Across India which includes ITAT Mumbai, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkutta, Hyderabad etc.
Income Tax : ITAT held section 35D(2)(c) applies only to companies and upheld disallowance of REIT's claim for IPO and listing expense amortisa...
Income Tax : Article examines whether the MLI Principal Purpose Test has domestic effect under Section 90(1) following Nestlé SA and Sky High ...
Corporate Law : The article argues that failure to comply before the AO or CIT(A) can lead to adverse assessments, as higher forums generally cann...
Income Tax : ITAT held that Section 54 exemption must be examined separately for each residential house sold. Aggregating gains from multiple t...
Income Tax : ITAT held that delayed filing of Form 10B cannot defeat Section 11 exemption if the audit report is available before processing un...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore restored the appeal after holding that mere upload of an order on the ITBA portal is not valid service under Sectio...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held Section 2(47)(v) inapplicable as the JDA did not satisfy Section 53A conditions, deleting capital gains for AY...
Income Tax : The issue concerns massive backlog in ITAT caused by unfilled positions and delayed appointments. The intervention highlights that...
Income Tax : A representation seeks doubling the SMC threshold due to inflation and higher dispute values. The key takeaway is that increasing ...
Income Tax : The tribunal held that a gift deed alone cannot establish legitimacy under Section 68. It directed fresh scrutiny of the donor’s...
Income Tax : ITAT deleted the Section 43 BMA penalty for non-disclosure of foreign ESOPs in Schedule FA, treating the omission as a bona fide...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai remanded Section 12AB and consequential Section 80G renewal after holding that FCRA renewal rejection required indepen...
Income Tax : ITAT deleted the Section 69A addition on advance sale consideration, upheld Section 153C proceedings, and partly allowed the asses...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad upheld revenue deduction for TV serial production costs, dismissed Revenue's appeal, and remanded subscription reve...
Income Tax : ITAT held the appeal was filed within the extended limitation granted by the Supreme Court, set aside the dismissal, and remanded ...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune allowed rectification under Section 254(2), correcting factual errors and granting Section 54EC deduction of ₹1 crore ...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi has revised its hearing notice protocols. Physical notices will now be sent only once, with subsequent dates availa...
Income Tax : ITAT Chandigarh held that ITO Ward-3(1), Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to issue notice to an NRI and hence consequently the asses...
Income Tax : Central Government is pleased to appoint Shri G. S. Pannu, Vice-President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, as President of th...
Income Tax : Ministry of Finance notified rules for appointment of members in various tribunals on 12.02.2020 in which practice of judicial and...
CAN double benefits under Sec 10B and also under Section 80HHC be availed on export of the same goods? Should Income Tax allow Sec 80HHC benefits if an exporter procures orders and closes the transaction by procuring goods from a third country and shipping the same straight to the buyer country,
In a setback to the once popular vyaj badla transactions, the Bombay high court recently held that an aggrieved party cannot take their disputes to the arbitration tribunal set up under the byelaws of the Bombay Stock Exchange. Dismissing a petition filed by a Mahim-based partnership firm against a city broker, a division bench of Justice R M S Khandeparkar and Justice D G Karnik held that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear cases arising out of such private transactions.
IT all started with search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of Friends Portfolio. In the course of the search, statements of Shri Manoj Agarwal and other persons were recorded and thereafter assessment was completed in their cases. It was found that all the transactions undertaken by Shri Manoj Agarwal through Friends Portfolio and his other concerns were bogus transactions, in the nature of merely providing entries without any real physical transactions relatable to those entries. Such entries were taken by a number of persons, namely, S/Shri C.P. Khanna, Puneet Khanna, Rajiv Aggarwal, Dhanraj Singh, Harjoot Singh, M/s Ramco Steel (P) Ltd. etc. The last named company filed petition to the Settlement Commission for settlement of its case in respect of entries taken from Shri Manoj Agarwal. In the statement Shri Manoj Agarwal admitted that all the entries given by him through Friends Portfolio and his other companies were in the nature of accommodation entries, which could be grouped into six categories as under:-
As no notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(2) in the present case as admitted by the AO himself in the remand report submitted to the learned CIT(A) as clearly mentioned by the learned CIT(A) in paragraph No. 17 on page 12 of his impugned order, the assessment order passed by him u/s 158BC suffered from a jurisdictional error and the same, therefore, was not valid in the eye of law.
The Applicant, an informer of the department, filed a RTI application seeking inspection & copies of all records available with the income tax department including assessment orders of Escorts Ltd, Dr. Naresh Trehan and connected parties. The application was rejected by the PIO on the ground that there was no overriding public interest in disclosing the information relating to third parties and the disclosure would lead to an invasion of privacy of the assessees. On appeal by the applicant, HELD allowing the appeal:
The view that section 43B is a general provision which merely bars deduction of specified sums, unless they are actually paid and whereas provisions of section 36(1)(va) specifically deal with deduction in respect of payment of employees’ contribution to provident fund and other funds; therefore, the provisions of section 36(1)(va),
In the present case, as is evident from admitted facts, the notice was Under Section 16(1). It is a general notice on the assessee as if she made a gift which had escaped assessment. There is no reference or mention to alleged deemed gift made by her mother Smt. Gurcharan Kaur which the G.T.O. wished to assess.
The Assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s 80IB on profit from DEPB Scheme and the cross objection filed by the Assessee was dismissed. In regard to Duty Draw Back Scheme, it has held by the division bench of the ITAT, Delhi that the receipt was in lieu of expenses earlier incurred by payment of excise and customs duty. Therefore, the receipt was in the course of the business of the industrial undertaking. Accordingly, it was entitled to exemption u/s 80IB.
The question before the Tribunal was whether Service Tax paid on outward transport of goods can be taken credit as input service. The issue is too well known for any detailed elaboration. Straight to what the Tribunal had to say; In a lucid and analytical dissection matching mathematical precision, the Tribunal observed.
The learned D.R has vehemently contended before us that no assessee can be said to be providing telecommunication services unless such services are provided from one end to the other end. According to him, the assessee is operating as backbone industry and connect the calls received through other service providers and, therefore, does not provide any service to the actual user of the phone. In my opinion, this contention cannot be accepted for the reason that legislature itself has allowed the deduction to telecommunication services through satellite or turnking network.
